Reader Comments and Retorts

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

6 of the top 9 '1960s' backloggers are from the NL. Fox is the only AL qualifier left who is in the top 25 of the backlog, while four NLers reside there (presumably 5 if we include Sutton - no idea where TJohn will rank).

We're almost done with the 1960s (Niekro definitely, Wynn and Sutton and Fox are pretty likely), and the NL will win it by about a 2 to 1 margin....

1) Phil Niekro
2) Ted Simmons. Possibly the best hitter among the newbies, pretty impressive for a catcher.
3) Quincy Trouppe
4) Ale Oms
5) Gavvy Cravath
6) Jimmy Wynn
7) Jimmy Ryan. I decided to flip-flop the Jimmies one more time.
8) Tony Lazzeri
9) Ron Cey
10) John McGraw. After reviewing him, I'll make a preliminary request for admission at the John McGraw bandwagon. Still not done with him, though.
11) Bob Johnson
12) Luis Tiant
13) Charley Jones
14) Gene Tenace
15) Don Sutton. I knew all about his overratedness, but I thought he would be higher. As said before, the lack of anything resembling a peak hurts him.

3. Of all the pitchers from this era, Stieb and Morris, included, Dennis Martinez comes up tops in my system, in spite of his strange career arc with those terrible seasons in the middle, and is most likely to make my ballot. A greater pitcher than his career 106 ERA+ would indicate.

What does you system pickup that other evaluations don't? How do you get him to be better than Stieb? Stieb actually has five separate seasons that were better than Martinez's best and a peak value that is 26.2% better than Martinez's.

And Alomar/Biggio/Knoblauch/Trammell/Whitaker as a group I haven't entirely sorted out except that Barry Larkin is probably at the head of the line (pending how I resolve the issues of his in-season durability.)

Big shake-up this year. Mainly the pitchers. My borderline backlog (#15-30) is especially getting a thorough review since we’ll all be moving a bunch of buys who have historically been off-ballot on-ballot in the next few years. Tommy Leach, Al Rosen and Luke Easter move into the top 25 and into position for serious consideration of moving on-ballot someday soon.

3. Ted Simmons (new, PHoM 1994)—I suppose you could characterize him as borderline, but then you’d really have to say “high borderline;” really dominates the other catcher candidates and there are a bunch of good ones.

6. Rollie Fingers (7-3-3, PHoM 1991)—there’s no uber-stat that says Fingers is ballot-worthy, but I go back to Chris Cobb’s old test—who do you want in the HoM? And on that simple basis, subjective as it is, I want the #3 reliever of all-time in our knowledge base through 1991.

7. Elston Howard (12-15-15, PHoM 1994)—never really thought of him as a HoM or HoF or PHoM type of player, but I now see him as one of those few players whose opportunities were least commensurate to his ability.

8. Addie Joss (9-6-6, PHoM 1967)—best ERA+ available among those with a real career’s worth of IP.

9. Orlando Cepeda (16-13-9, PHoM 1987)—pretty interchangeable with F. Howard, Cravath and (now) Tony Perez, but the best of the group.

10. Phil Rizzuto (22-17-17)—moves up, we’ve elected all the great hitters, how about the great gloves?

11. Dick Redding (26-25-25, PHoM 1971)—moves back up, as I’m trying to get back to looking for that great peak.

12. Nellie Fox (8-4-4, PHoM 1971)—I’ve decided I like Rizzuto a bit better, two very very comparable players.

13. Reggie Smith (17-10-11, PHoM 1988)—still underrated.

14. Ed Williamson (13-11-13, PHoM 1924)—Ed is like a bad habit I just can’t shake.

You mention that Dizzy Dean is a PHOM choice for the upcoming election and yet ot drop him 13 spots to #36. Shouldn't you elect someone on or near your ballot like Tommy Leach? Or is that just a misprint? BTW, I am wrestling with Putting Dean, Fingers, or Oms in my PHOM this 'year'.

What does you system pickup that other evaluations don't? How do you get him to be better than Stieb? Stieb actually has five separate seasons that were better than Martinez's best and a peak value that is 26.2% better than Martinez's.

kwarren- My nonlinear, ERA+ based, system views El Presidente's career more favorably than WARP does and it's enough to overcome Stieb's peak advantage.

Dean is probably the toughest player for me to rate that there has ever been. My #1 number for pitchers is ERA+ (ok, along with WS). And when I start to really focus on ERA+ Diz drops down around #36. When I look at a lot of other factors he moves up. I have been re-rating the pitchers and had Dean as high as #6 during the past week, on a pre-prelim ballot and he was at one time my pre-prelim PHoM choice. But then in my final final look I just felt I couldn't support that, but missed the obvious edit.

In my very final re-eval, Niekro and Sutton moved up, BTW, while as you can see Dean and Bond dropped. So while I consider myself a peak voter, there's a limit, I guess, and especially when ERA+ isn't there. Though OTOH Don Newcombe is the exception to the rule. His ERA+ isn't that great. But like Ellie Howard his career was very very heavily disrupted and I MLE for that.

I should add that Rizzuto benefits a lot from war credit, too. I will take another final final look at Concepcion in light of Rizzuto and Fox but, yes, I'm a WS guy. But aside from WS, Rizzuto and Fox won MVP awards that they were generally thought to deserve, while Concepcion was never ever considered to be that kind of player.

As I've said, I've got guys as low as #60 or so now who have been on my ballot, and buys as low as the 50s who were once among my PHoM consideration set of maybe 5-6 final candidates for PHoM in a given backlog year. It pains me to see guys that were once on my ballot now down in the 30s-40s-50s-60s, and now and again I grab one of those guys and push 'em back into the top 25-30 or so. But usually they drop back again. Sentimentality is all it is, usually. Tommy Leach OTOH has never been on my ballot but suddenly he is the guy this week that I just can't seem to place down in the 50s and 60s. We'll see if it lasts.

Along with Leach, Rosen and Easter and Bando moved up quite a bit. The current discussion on the Graig Nettles thread is certainly not favorable to Rosen. I am still considering whether I have the 3Bs in the right order, but I'm pretty darned sure that Bando beats Nettles. Where Leach and Rosen fit in depends very much on your criteria. And on my ballot I describe Larry Doyle as the best of the 3Bs, for obvious reasons, that is the spectrum shift. Doyle and Leach, being (very) rough contemporaries are an interesting pair.

Anyway, I have never understood you guys who have your ballot down pat and nobody ever moves relative to one another. How do you do that?

I don't think you are actually talking to me here but I want to say that I have tons of movement between 12-40 or 50 or so. However, righ tnow my top ten is pretty set outside of the newbies that get slotted in each year. It just seems that every time I look at them I realize why I put them in that spot. There are reasons why I would move say, Jimmy Wynn, up or down, but it seems that below Bucky Walters and above Quincey Trouppe is the best spot I can put him in.

This hasn't always been the case, there was a time that I have Charlie Keller below Duffy, Redding, and Walters as well as Kiner, Childs, and Moore. That changed and now Keller is my #1 backlogger and the only one that I feel HAS to be in the HOM. Maybe my top 11 are pretty much set because I make sure to run a player through the paces if they are on the cusp of my PHOM.

Prelim

1. Niekro - easy choice, he was only slightly behind Carlton last year
2. Keller - The one guy that I really, really, really want to see in the HOM before we are done. Very nice, long peak.
3. Hugh Duffy - Rates so highly because I am willing, as WS is, to give him some credit for his teams out playing not only their RS and RA but their component record as well. One argument for peak voting is that great seasons help win pennants and since the Red Stocking won so much, that credit has to go somewhere. Maybe the manger? I am willing to listen.
4. Dick Redding - 2nd best NeL pitcher of the dead ball era, better than Mendez IMO.
5. Bucky Walters - He has Dean's peak (almost) with more valuable seasons around it.
6. Jimmy Wynn - Nice peak in a era (60-93?) where great peaks were harder to come by. Underrated due to his ear and park
7. Ted Simmons - His catchers bonus isnt' very big as he played full seasons with time at 1B and in the OF. I have him as slightly better than Torre and the best catcher on the board. Definite HOMer though.
8. Quincey Trouppe - Very nice peak, very good hitter for a catcher. Better than Mackey IMO.
9. Elston Howard - very similar to Trouppe except he played OF instead of 3B and he spent time not playing vs. spent time in the MxL. I am rethinking whether or not that last one should count for anything.
10. Pete Browning - Great hitter who would be higher if not for an AA discount.
11. Gavvy Cravath - Virtually tied with Browning in my rankings

These two are currently fighting it out for my third PHOM spot (Simmons and Niekro got the first two). Everyone above them is in.

14. Alejandro Oms - I like him slightly more than GVH but can be convinced otherwise. Long, high prime.
(Pierce, W.Brown)
15. Vic Willis - First time on my ballot. I have always liked him but he hadn't gotten through enough backlog for me to place him on my ballot. Moved up some recently over OF candidates like Berger, Howard, and GVH.

16. Sutton - Still not sure what to do with him. Chances are he will make my PHOM before we are done. I have him essentially tied with Rixey (who is in my PHOM) but I am nto sure that Rizey would be higher than 14 on this ballot. I may have been hasty with his induction.

None of the newbies not ranked are really in my consideration set. Sutter is not my type, though he is a local boy from LAncaster County, Pa. In fact his nephew (Ryan, I believe) struck me out in Varsity one time. This was no great achievement, however, as I wasn't very good. Nettles and Concepcion are interesting, in fact Davey is around #45 but not really my cup of tea, I like a higher peak.

If we elect twelve backloggers after 1994 that would mean everyone through Shocker would be in my PHOM. Obviously the next five guys are really close as well.

If any of you are confused about a Dickey Pearce thread posted more than 60 "years" after he was inducted :-), let me explain. I'm going to be posting new threads for every player who never received one and will have some discussion links attached to them. BTW, each player thread, new or old, will now be accessible at the top of the Plaque Room (thanks to friend-of-the-HoM Dave Johnson for thinking that up for us!)

One issue about Elston Howard. In order to get him on the ballot, as far as I can tell, you need to give him credit for 1)the slow pace of integration, and 2)being stuck behind Berra for several years. I don't really have a problem with the first part, but I'm not sure the second part is accurate. We've all heard the arguments about whether Bob Feller would have gotten to 300 wins if not for World War II - did the years off from pitching hold off an inevitable breakdown given the workload he was given before the war?

Given the short lifespan that catchers often suffer from, I'm not sure that you couldn't make a similar argument for Howard. If he was signed by another team and put in the lineup from day one, would he have lasted until the mid-60s, or would it be a case of putting his great early 60s seasons into the 50s, but not a great deal more than that when it's all done? I guess I'm just reluctant to give credit to someone for playing catcher when they weren't actually doing that, and I'd be interested to know what other people think.

I think the case for Howard relies on different variables than you've suggested, Devin. Howard missed Korea time, which undoubtedly pushed him back a couple years. Prior to the war, he played three years with the Monarchs, then jumped to the Central League (which, I think, was a lower-to-middle level minor league). He hit well there. Then the two war years. When he returned, he played two years at AAA, the first pretty good (shaking the rust off, I guess) in the IL, the second, with KC of the AA was excellent and precipitated his promotion to the majors. (Note, I could have the order of IL/AA wrong, I'm working off memory). Regardless of whether the Yanks played him or not, the meat of the discussion is how to deal with the two war years and the five or six years he logged between the NgLs and the MiLs.

I don't like to go down the line of figuring out whether slow integration practices by the Yanks should be credited. I mean he hit well in year one with them, poorly the next two years, and those two poor years could have been why he didn't play much, not because of color. You'd have to ask Casey Stengel. But the stuff before he hits the majors, that's where we may have more room for assessment.

That said, his MLB career is close enough to get him into the lower rungs of HOMable catchers for me.

As a peak voter, Howard is clearly in the consideration set, and then what Doc said. The NeL career, Korea, the slow pace of integration. If Howard had played earlier and spent an entire career in the NeL, there is no doubt in my mind that he was and would have appeared better than Biz Mackey. If he had come along a decade later, he would have been Bill Freehan. But as it is, his career suffered more interruptions than is fair. His WS peak of 32-29-28 says it all. As it is, his 4th best season was a 20. Under anything approaching normality, there would have been a couple-three more seasons between 28 and 20.

In 1964 at the age of 35 he played 150 games and hit .313/.371/.455 (OPS+ 127) with 15 HR and 84 RBI and 172 hits. And that's not his MVP year. In fact he had more RBI twice and a higher OPS+ twice. He was an A- glove compared to Lombardi at D+, Bresnahan C+, Munson B-, Tenace C, Schang C+ among the consideration set for the position. Only Tenace among them clearly out-hit him.

I am leaving Simmons out of this BTW as he is so clearly the top catcher for the moment, I expect him to move out from among the eligibles ex post haste.

He was backup to Yogi Berra, who still caught a lot of games those years. 1959 was Yogi's last great season as a catcher. 1960 was a transitional year (and Stengel's last as manager).

In 1961 the job appears to have been Howard's (don't know what role, if any, the managerial change played in this), and begins Howard's streak of 4 great seasons. Howard was only 4 years younger than Yogi, so it's not too surprising that the run wasn't longer.

These were better seasons than Yogi had had at the same age (though it must be noted that Elston also had had a lot less wear-and-tear due to his prolonged understudy role). In fact, those might be the best 4 seasons that any catcher has had aged 32-35. At that age, White was playing 3rd, Ewing 1st, Bennett was in a backup role. Bresnahan was player-managing, Cochrane was beaned around 32-33, Dickey and Carter and Piazza's last great season was at 32, Bench at 31.

It's a highly unusual career. One which makes you wonder if a truly great player was forced to play an understudy role to another truly great player because the player had no real options and the team had no compelling need to either play him or trade him.

Note: Just want to point out that I'm not suggesting that Howard might have been Josh Gibson if he'd only had a chance to play. (I think the Yankees would have noticed that.)

Hey guys, I just posted some really interesting information on Quincy Trouppe that Strat-O Fan was kind enough to pass along to me. Thank you Strat-O Fan!

The basic gist of it is this: Trouppe hit the snot out of the ball; the league quality was so-so but his team was very good and beat a lot of top touring teams; Trouppe did an excellent job shutting down the running game and appears overall to have done a good job on defense.

Most important to me, however, is this: I've been hammering for years on this one note that we should be treating his Bismark play more seriously, that it merits full credit. Now we have some real sense of the first year he was there, right after he jumped from the NgLs. Prior to this, Trouppe was an afterthought in accounts of Bismark, if he's ever mentioned, but now we have hard data showing that the man was making an impact there. The 1933-1936 period in his career is coming into sharper focus, and those seasons, which will be especially important to career voters, need to be considered more fully.

In the years 1893 to 1901, John McGraw scored 937 runs. While only playing in 908 games.
Yes, it was a high-offense era. Still, only two other guys (550 game minimum over these 9 yrs) accomplished the same:
1 Billy Hamilton, who was truly an all-time great (1119 runs in 1024 games)
2 Willie Keeler (1139 runs in 1084 games), whose OWP in this time was much lower than McGraw's (.685 to .748). And we elected him to the HoM.

And of course, both of those guys were outfielders. McGraw played third base, which was more like today's second base.

Tom, I know Chance is (b), which hurts him since there's lots of dudes at 1B with superior peaks and careers. Since (a) isn't Sam Thompson (wrong century), I think you should let us know if he's at the same end of the defensive spectrum....

Koufax is an odd comparison because pitchers workloads thorughout time have created different WS totals dependent on era. While I use WS extensively, I rearely do direct comparisons of pitchers from different eras, let alone pitchers and position players from different eras.

Chance's peak in my system is very good, even for a 1B, but he doesn't have a great prime for a player at his position and his career totals are pretty low. McGraw ranks higher among 3B than Chance does amongst 1B. Of course Chance's contemporaries at 1B weren't that great either, which gives him a boost. If Chance had played about 10-20 more games per season in seasons 3-9 of his career (or so, I dont' have GP and WS in front of me), he would be on my ballot. But a lack of prime seasons at a position with players filled with them, brings him down some IMO.

My view is that if Koufax was a position player then we would not have elected him.
Pitchers are a special case insofar as they can dominate a World Series. Sandy
Koufax (or, say, Bob Gibson) at his best gave his team a very high probability of
winning a World Series game, and by extension the World Series.

A position player generally does not have the same amount of influence on a
World Series as an ace starting pitcher. For one, if a hitter is red-hot he can
be pitched around.

Anyway, I appreciate Tom's advocacy of Frank Chance. I have reviewed Chance
many times and every time I move him up a bit. However, as a career-value voter,
Chance remains just off my ballot. I definitely encourage everyone to give
him another look.

I do find it interesting that Tinker, Evers and Chance are among the best players of their era that we haven't inducted. Everyone assumes they were a big mistake who were only inducted because someone wrote a nifty poem about them. If the size of the hall were just a little bit bigger than it is you would pretty much have to induct them.

I do find it interesting that Tinker, Evers and Chance are among the best players of their era that we haven't inducted. Everyone assumes they were a big mistake who were only inducted because someone wrote a nifty poem about them. If the size of the hall were just a little bit bigger than it is you would pretty much have to induct them.

He became the (most) regular Yankees catcher in 1960 when he caught 91 games and Berra caught 63. In 1957-59, Howard caught 32, 67 and 43 games respectively, but despite catching only 20-40 percent of Yankees games, he was selected as a third catcher for the All-Star game in each case. Yankees manager Casey Stengel was the AL manager all three times, so there was the possibility of giving his own guy the nod. But three times in a row? Stengel must have known something. Also, Stengel had not carried three catchers for the AS game until Howard came into the picture.

On the other hand, Howard made the '59 team for the second game (this was the first year of two AS games per year) only as a replacement for Gus Triandos, who was injured between the two games.

Now for some less salient but still interesting items.

Berra was on the AS team all three years as Howard, with the other spot going to either Triandos or Sherm Lollar. Lollar came up with Cleveland in '46, then was traded to the Yankees for '47 and '48 as their #4 catcher, but wasn't going to get past the Yankees' #2 catcher, Berra. Lollar then was traded to the St. Louis Browns.

A few years later, Triandos came up with the Yankees, and also did a two-year stint, '53-54 as the #4 catcher. But in '54 Berra has just won the second of his three MVPs, and the Yankees decided to bring up Howard for '55 and shuffled Triandos off to the former Browns, now the Baltimore Orioles.

in the seven-year run from '54-60, the AL all-star catchers were Berra (each year), plus Lollar, Howard and Triandos in various years. That's three all-star catchers the Yankees had aside from Berra, and the guy they ultimately chose to replace Berra was Howard, who wasn't even the youngest. (Triandos was born 1930, Howard '29, Berra '25, Lollar '24.)

Berra's string of years as the team's #1 catcher coincided exactly with Stengel's years as manager, '49-60. The #3 Yankees catcher in Lollar's two years through the first of Triandos's two years was Stengel's successor, Ralph Houk.

One damning aspect of the election of Tinker, Evers and Chance is that they all walked through the Coop doors together in 1946. It's as if the VC asked, "how can we put in one without the others?" The three picks might at least have given the appearance of having been thought through if they'd gone in in different years.

Monty - to be honest, that sells Joe Tinker short. He's a shortsop, and shortstops don't have to get black ink. (And how are you supposed to get offensive black ink sharing a league with Honus Wagner?) And the perception that Tinker was a top-notch defensive shortstop was correct. Tinker and Evers both had ~1800 game careers and Chance had ~1300 games. Harry Steinfeldt had ~1650 games, with not all of it at 3B. It's definitely lack of bulk that's standing in Chance's way; with all three (or four) one must take care to properly correct for the extremely run-scarce environment they played in at their peaks. Tinker was quite a good hitter, for a shortstop.

The team won. Not many dynasties have done much better. And they did it in part with fungible pitchers who only looked great when they pitched for the Cubs. (Modecai Brown was far from fungible, but they weren't asking him for 400 innnings a year.) In past HoM elections, I have had Chance on my ballot, and I had Evers on my ballot briefly. The biggest problem with voting for Tinker is that I can't see having him ahead of Herman Long, as long as Long is on the outside. Neither Chance nor Evers is particularly close to my ballot now, as 70 or 80 years worth of new worthy candidates have inserted themselves into the queue - but if we had happened to elect either a long time ago, it wouldn't have been our worst mistake.

Not long ago we had a little game of naming the best infield without a HoFer, with varying results. If the question were what the best infield without a HoMer is, I think that Steinfeldt/Tinker/Evers/Chance would be very, very hard to top.

Kling was a great catcher as well, but like Chief Meyers he just didn't play long enough be a good HOM candidate. (Similarly, Bresnahan played long enough to be a candidate, but not long enough to get inducted yet)

Many of the 1906-1910 Cubs all peaked at the same time. Brown & Sheckard were the only ones who had a long enough prime to get inducted here (and ironically, Sheckard's best years were not 1906-1910).

One damning aspect of the election of Tinker, Evers and Chance is that they all walked through the Coop doors together in 1946. It's as if the VC asked, "how can we put in one without the others?"

Whatever you think of the merits of their respective cases, the fact is that both Chance and Evers were high vote-getters in the BBWAA elections of 1945-46. Chance led the ballot in both 1945 and 1946, missing election by 7 and 8 votes (72% and 71%). Evers was 4th then 2nd at 54% and 64%. Tinker was back in the pack, 18th and 13th with 20% and 27%. The VC probably did get too cute adding him to the election group in 1946, but everybody ahead of him on those BBWAA ballots, and many behind him (top 33 and 28, everybody ahead of Johnny Kling) would eventually make the HOF.

How significant can it be that Joe Tinker was in the top 10 in Sacrifice Hits six times? He was the eighth-oldest player in 1916 -- big deal!

You don't get black or grey ink for those things. His grey ink total is not impressive, but he got it by showing up on the leaderboard for standard stats (20 pts for Avg/HR/RBI, 6 pts for SLG, 10 pts for 2B/SB and 5 pts for G/3B).

It not a fair measure for him though. None of the monitors are park or era adjusted. (though he does get some nice points for being a starting shortstop on WS teams).

Kling was a great catcher as well, but like Chief Meyers he just didn't play long enough be a good HOM candidate. (Similarly, Bresnahan played long enough to be a candidate, but not long enough to get inducted yet)

"didn't play long enough" only if you erronously apply current day standards to deadball players.

If Johnson had started his career in 1966, I'm sure that Johnson's K totals would destroy Suttons, while his BB totals would be significantly less.

The only thing that means is that you just can't effectively use Walter Johnson as a comparison point in a Hall of Merit debate. How can you use him as a comparison point at all? Pete Alexander wasn't Johnson, but he could stand alongside Johnson in the same time and place without looking too shabby. Joe Williams - well it all depends on the quality of the data and the MLE interpretations, but maybe he was sort of kind of like Johnson - well, maybe not Johnson, but maybe Alexander or Mathewson. You want to argue across the timeline? Let's argue Seaver versus Johnson. Or Clemens versus Johnson. But none of those work in an HoM debate, just because they're moot: Alexander, Williams, Seaver, and Clemens are such shoo-ins that they don't need debate.

I am going to support Sutton for the HoM. It's a career case, and it's bolstered slightly by the fact that he looks a little better in RA+ than in ERA+. I'm not going to argue that he's the equal of the likes of Niekro and Carlton, but that he's closer to them than he is to the likes of Kaat and John. In another thread in another part of BTF, someone called Nolan Ryan "Don Sutton with no-hitters." Yes, exactly. I think Sutton and Ryan are both in, and I don't see a lot of difference betwen them. But those are my comparison points: Niekro, Carlton, Kaat, John, Ryan (and Early Wynn and Red Ruffing). Let's leave Johnson (and Seaver) out of it.

This isn't really relevant, but is there any argument besides timeline against the Big Train as the greatest pitcher evar?

There are always arguments, Dan. Hell, in the past, I have given them. :-) But Johnson looks like Numero Uno to me. The only exception I would offer is Clemens, but only since I haven't fully analyzed and compared his career to Barney's yet.

Hello! I'm new to the site but excited to start participating and voting on the candidates. We're getting close to the year when I started following the Hall of Fame votes in REAL LIFE, so I think it'll be fun and interesting to jump in. I've tried to skim through some of the already posted articles, but with years and years of ballots already voted on, it's a little daunting. Would it be possible for somebody (the moderator?) to email me and let me know exactly what I need to do to get started? Do I just look at the most recent ballot posted (looks like 1994) and decide on my selections? Do I post them on the site or email to the moderator? If I'm reading some of the posts correctly, we our to rank our 1st choice, 2nd choice, 3rd choice, etc....but the in any given year there are a set number that will be elected. Correct? Okay, if there's anything else I should know before I get started, please let me know. I look forward to joining the ranks of the voters!

that Sutton's career K and BB totals are almost identical to Walter Johnson's. That's not too shabby.

Even better...

And Dave Concepcion and Honus Wagner have the same number of career HRs.

That's just childish. The two comparisons are not comparable. And I wasn't saying that Sutton was comparable to Johnson, I was just saying the guy racked up the 7th all time amoumt of strikeouts and had a better K/BB ratio than an all time great. That is not comparing Concepcion to Wagner, its comparing Rose to Cobb, or Palmeiro to Foxx. I don't think Palmeiro's comparable to Foxx, I just think racking up that many homeruns is not too shabby.

I also wasn't trying to be persuasive. I don't think there is any doubt that Sutton will make it in next week. I was just saying look at this guy -- 3rd most starts ever. That's not too shabby.

I think there may also be an argument for Lefty Grove being better than Johnson based on his extra years in Baltimore. Bill James tried to make that argument at one point, but decided that Johnson was still better in the NBJHBA.

If I had one guy that I would have pitch for one game, I may still choose late 90's, early 00's Pedro. Maybe it is because I was still a teenager, but I rembmer looking at bax scores adn thinking, "Damn, they got 3 runs on Pedro? They rocked him!" in an era where teams usually scored about 5. But it is more of an impression of dominance and not anything statistical.

rlopahle,

You can post a sample ballto on this thread. Make sure to give reasons why a number of players are or aren't on your ballot. Using out listing form the 1993 elections is a good start.

And I may as well ask it now...what do you think of Charlie Keller? If he isn't on you ballot I know that I would like to hear why. Others will choose Jake Beckley, Nellie Fox, etc.

Well, start by going to this thread, which has links to many of the important threads over the years. The "Something Better" article there was the kickoff so to speak. The Constitution explains the rules. There's also a history of the voting, etc..

To begin voting, you should at a minimum be aware of everyone that received a vote last election and what the positives/negatives are for their respective cases.

We really want voters that can look at a player from 1878 the same way they look at 1978. Charley Jones or Jim Rice, for example . . .

To get started post a preliminary ballot on this thread - make sure to explain each of your choices (why you like them, etc.). You should also be able to explain why you aren't voting for anyone who was in the 1993 top-10.

You'll rank your top 15 candidates. This year we are electing 3, but that shouldn't change your ballot any.

We'll all look it over, to make sure it passes the 'smell test', shows you are considering all eras, etc.. We'll probably offer some constructive criticism, don't take it personally, one of the best things about this group is that we challenge each other when we see something we disagree with. Don't take anything personally.

Assuming that part goes well, you can then post a ballot to the ballot thread when it's posted next week.

OCF--I certainly have Young as no. 2 alltime (Clemens no. 3). For a pure career voter with no timeline, Young vs. Walter could indeed be close. But if there is any consideration of rate or peak rate, Johnson is definitively ahead.

What an entertaining idea about Grove. But he's not even in Walter Johnson's ballpark--I have him below Clemens, Mathewson, and Alexander as well, in Greg Maddux territory, and I don't think that a few minor league years could make it up.

The guy who always seems overrated to me is Seaver--he pitched forever at a very high rate and had some great peak years, but he certainly didn't *dominate* for an extended period like the modern quartet of Randy, Pedro, Clemens, and Maddux. I know that nobody did when Seaver pitched (although Bob Gibson's 1968-70 peak certainly counts, particularly if his hitting is included), so maybe with consideration of the standard deviation of ERA+ Seaver might move up, but that seems like a debatable argument to me.

And of course, Pedro's 1999-2000 were, on a pitch-for-pitch basis, the greatest seasons ever by a starting pitcher and no one is even close (aside from maybe Maddux's strike years). But he only threw 217 innings those years, so they didn't have a greater win value than the best seasons by the other greats.

The guy who always seems overrated to me is Seaver--he pitched forever at a very high rate and had some great peak years, but he certainly didn't *dominate* for an extended period like the modern quartet of Randy, Pedro, Clemens, and Maddux. I know that nobody did when Seaver pitched (although Bob Gibson's 1968-70 peak certainly counts, particularly if his hitting is included), so maybe with consideration of the standard deviation of ERA+ Seaver might move up, but that seems like a debatable argument to me.

Only Pierce, Gibson, Guidry and Gooden can top his 193 ERA+ in 1971 post-war/pre-1990. His long decline hurts his rate stats, but his career ERA+ was over 140 as late as age 32.

Most of the "greatest pitcher since WWII" accolades that Seaver has gotten were given to him at earlier points in Randy/Clemens/Maddux and Pedro's careers. He's still got a legitimite argument as the best pitcher between Grove and Clemens which is not too shabby.

The argument that Clemens was a better pitcher than Johnson runs something like this, and "timeline" might be a shortform for it. Johnson reached his peak in 1912-13 (and it was an astonishing peak- higher than Clemens' by quite a bit if one accounts for his significant contribution with the bat) in an environment which heavily favoured pitchers. In such an environment, pitching statistics are decentralized in the same way that hitting statistics are decentralized in a hitter's era (hence Hack Wilson's 56 homers in 1930). Very good and excellent pitchers are more able to take advantages of the characteristics of the era by saving their stuff.

Johnson's return to earth when the lively ball era arrived can be construed one of two ways. Either that he had simply worn down some due to all the innings he had logged in his 20s, or that he was not quite as great as he had appeared to be. Probably, it was a little of both. In any event, Clemens' ability to thrive in his 30s in a high run-scoring environment is awfully impressive, and contrasts with Johnson's decline.

Statistically, if one adjusts Johnson's innings for the standards of the time, he and Clemens are very close. One or the other has been the best pitcher ever, but you can make reasonable cases for both.

If it was earth he returned to, it was a pretty high altitiude region of it. Back when this was a hot topic I tried something with my system, which was slicing Johnson in two halfway through the 1915 season. That point was picked so the front half would match the career length of Addie Joss. And that front half was otherworldly - an equivalent record of 198-92, not comparable to anyone (or anyone before Pedro). The back half, from mid-1915 on, registered at an equivalent 228-139. That's what Mordecai Brown's whole career would look like before we took a downward defensive adjustment on Brown. That compares favoably to Feller's whole-career 254-171, or to Ford's 218-154. (That's a dead ringer for Cy Young in the American League.)

If you split a little later, you get Johnson 1920-1927 at an equivalent 119-84, with a three year stretch of 17-12, 21-10, 16-9. That's not a whole HoM career by itself but it is Mel Parnell or Smokey Joe Wood. And he did win an MVP (League Award).

I'm guessing that if you did the same thing with Clemens, and divided his career at age 30, you would end up with 2 careers about equivalent to Sandy Koufax', and perhaps a little better. Koufax' peak was arguably higher.

In our history, a handful of candidates have achieved vote totals that look like Niekro's last year: overwhelming support, near-unanimous placement in the top n candidates, where n is a very small number that is still larger than the number of election slots. We've never reneged on our support for a candidate with that level of support, and we won't renege on Niekro. I would expect Niekro to finsh #1 in this year's totals, with Simmons #2.

Sutton won't have overwhelming support, but the odds are in his favor, under the Bill Terry rule: the odds favor a reasonably good newcomer competing with a deeply divided backlog.

Not surprisingly, since I see Trouppe and Simmons as having very similar value and because Sutton doesn't do well in my system and goes against most of my prejudices...er, I mean preferences, I'd prefer to see Niekro/Simmons/Trouppe myself. In fact, I'm still not sure whether Sutton will appear on my ballot.

Sutton definitely will not be on my ballot. Very Beckley-esque, with a pitcher's glove. In some senses, a stronger case than Beckley as a career of that length and breadth is much harder to come by with pitchers. A winning pitcher. A perm!
On the downside, there were simply too many poor years to really merit too much hoopla in my system. For example, he pitched in 7 seasons (160 IP min.) with ERA+'s under 100. There were only 6 seasons in which he had an ERA+ of 120 or more.
So Sutton's definitely an outlier. I don't have anyone else on the consideration sets (any position) with whome he can truly be compared to. He's 36th right now. I can see myself bumping him up a miximum of 10 spots through various twistings and turnings of my own system. Any more than that would require a serious overhaul.

As the best friend of Dizzy Dean and Sandy Koufax, I will have Don Sutton in an elect me spot on my ballot. Clearly he does not have the kind of peak I normally look for from a HoM pitcher, but I like the shutouts. That he is just 5 short of being tied with Spahn for the most career shutouts post-deadball era impresses me. Call it a different kind of peak, to pitch that many CG where a single run is all you need to win the game. On a game to game basis, you can't ask for more from your pitcher.

I certainly have Young as no. 2 alltime (Clemens no. 3). For a pure career voter with no timeline, Young vs. Walter could indeed be close. But if there is any consideration of rate or peak rate, Johnson is definitively ahead.

Walter Johnson would seem to be the best pitcher who has ever pitched using WARP analysis and comparising only to other players in the league, timeline or no timeline. Without the timeline Young is clearly superior to Clemens at peak value, but with the timelime the nod goes to Clemens on the basis of total career value.

It seems to me that it is very difficult to compare players who played before integration to those that played afterwards. Up until 1947 the only players who played in the majors were "white Americans", and during the war years even a lot of them were not available. Currently most of the best players in the world end up in the majors. The competition is inordinately more difficult today encompassing all the black players who were barred until 1947 as well as the best players from Canada, Central America, South America, and Eastern Asia. The player pool from which major league baseball drew it's particpants in Johnson's and Cy Young's time was miniscule compared to what it is now. To accurately compare Clemens to these two guys seems like a virtual impossibility. Imagine how Clemens would do in a league that had no black players and no players from outside the USA. He could conceivebly do a lot better than Walter Johnson or Cy Young did, but it's all speculative.

that Sutton's career K and BB totals are almost identical to Walter Johnson's. That's not too shabby.

Even better...

And Dave Concepcion and Honus Wagner have the same number of career HRs.

That's just childish. The two comparisons are not comparable. And I wasn't saying that Sutton was comparable to Johnson, I was just saying the guy racked up the 7th all time amoumt of strikeouts and had a better K/BB ratio than an all time great. That is not comparing Concepcion to Wagner, its comparing Rose to Cobb, or Palmeiro to Foxx.

Daryn, I did not intend to offend, so I apologize for the tone of my remark.

However, I still don't think much of the comparison. K/BB ratios also change dramatically over time. See below.

Also, as a strong career voter, you may not think much of Concepcion when compared to Sutton, but as a peak/prime/career voter, I will have Concepcion ahead of Sutton on my ballot, so I think that Sutton:Johnson is closer to Concepcion:Wagner than Rose:Cobb as the analogies go.

***

Johnson also walked fewer men compared to his contempoaries than Sutton did.

If Johnson has started his career in 1966, I'm sure that Johnson's K totals would destroy Suttons, while his BB totals would be significantly less.

BP has a toy method "Translated Statistics" whose methodology I'm unsure of, but whose results seem to make some sense, at least for some statistics. It attempts to translate the entire line -- pitching or batting -- into a historically neutral environment, apparently similar to today's.

The translation of the Sutton and Johnson career lines is interesting. It shows that both were similar in their ability to prevent walks over the course of their careers. Their walk totals and career rates are essentially comparable, before and after translation, though Johnson had a higher variance (wild early and not as sharp late in his career).

Strikeouts are a different story. K's were much more difficult to come by during Johnson's career, and he gets a 30% boost relative to Sutton in this stat, which results in a difference of nearly 1000 K's over their careers. A significant difference in K levels invalidating the K:BB ratio comparisons.

Similarly, Concepcion and Wagner both hit 101 career HR's. But in the translated stats, Concepcion moves up to 164 HR's and Wagner to 601. Again a significant difference due to the historical context under which the stats were compiled. That was my original point.

"Statistically, if one adjusts Johnson's innings for the standards of the time, he and Clemens are very close. One or the other has been the best pitcher ever, but you can make reasonable cases for both."

Hey, that's what I do . . . I ran Clemens for fun, even though it isn't time yet . . .

I do have them 1-2, though I haven't ran everyone yet. Johnson still has a significant lead, 2.487 PA to 2.194. Clemens would need about 2 1/4 seasons like 2005 to pass him.

In terms of translated IP accounting for era norms, I get Clemens at 5399.3, Johnson at 5577.3.

In terms of rate, I have (after adjusting for league quality - within the season, not timeline - defense, etc.) Clemens at a DRA+ of 144, Johnson also at 144.

Cy Young (1.983/5727.0/132) and Pete Alexander (1.945/5186.0/135) are the only ones close, even giving Grove (1.697/4684.0/138) credit for 3 years with the Orioles.

I have Seaver (1.586/4805.7/127) after Spahn (1.657/5268.7/121) on that list (#7 counting Clemens). Feller (1.518/4962.3/121) with conservative war credit is #8, and then it's a huge dropoff to Mathewson, Carlton and Niekro.

The one thing that is wild about Johnson/Clemens is that they have a ton of innings - they are among only 11 pitchers I have with over 5000 tIP . . . but they also have, except for Koufax the highest DRA+ at 144.

Only Koufax at 153 has a higher career rate, and I've run about 300 guys. That's just mind blowing. You'd think someone with 1000 or 2000 fewer innings could have put up a better rate for their career, but no one did. I'd guess Pedro probably has a higher rate, but I'd doubt Maddux or RJ would.

Even among the relievers I've run (not the modern closers, except for Rivera) only Tom Henke has a higher rate (154). Rivera is off the charts at 201, but I haven't run any of his counterparts other than John Franco (121).

kwarren - I'm not as worried about the pre/post integration comparisons as most. You had a lot of things come along to offset the talent boost from integration - other sports, wars (the kids who died 1941-45 that we never heard of would have been in their primes during integration), expansion, etc.. After 1961, the expansion effect is huge. Baseball expanded by 50% from 1961-69.

It's not like all of the sudden everyone who was good before 1947 started to put up craptastic numbers because of this massive influx of talent.

I think the integration boom has been vastly overstated by most. By the time it was really in full gear in the early 1960s baseball expanded by 25% in 2 years, more than enough to offset it.

But if I were to argue for the Rocket or Grove, I would point out that Johnson took unusually large advantage of his home field and the deadball era. If you break out his post-1920 stats in road games, he looks very mortal. Apparently his style of fastball-over-the-plate would have allowed a lot of long hits in the modern era in most parks. But there were few long hits before 1920, and in the Washington park there were very few even after it. (data is on my other computer).

but I like the shutouts. That he is just 5 short of being tied with Spahn for the most career shutouts post-deadball era impresses me. Call it a different kind of peak, to pitch that many CG where a single run is all you need to win the game. On a game to game basis, you can't ask for more from your pitcher.

I'm asking a question to which I have neither much of an opinion, much of an answer, nor much of an agenda other than connecting two dots.

Elsewhere I noted that Sutton's average PF was well below average. His career ERA+ is below 110. He threw a ton of shutouts. Is it likely that his number of shutouts is influenced by his home parks? He threw 39 at home and 19 away.

The comparison to Blyleven started out this line of thinking, I think, and Bly was 26/34 H/R in shutouts. Is Blyleven the unsual one, or Sutton? Or are shutouts just random?

how weird is it that Mike Mussina may end up the greatest Yankees pitcher of them all?

I have always had an interest is playing the greatest ever from a franchise against another, but I feel that while the Yankes have won like three times as many World Series as anyone else, they would be nomore than the '95 indiands in such a league.

Chris (Cobb) - one of the aspects of my system (also an aspect that I am comfortable in maintaining, while admitting that I may need to refine it at times) is that I value consistency at an above average rate more than I value simple longevity. Sutton is by no means a simple case. A very long career at slightly above average production. Some very good/excellent seasons. Some seasons not measuring up to average, but close enough that average is within sight.
I am Lefty Gomez's biggest fan. A pitcher with a short career. A pitcher who admittedly retired because he stated that he was no longer dominant. Although I beleive that he could have put up at least average nunbers for the duration of the war, I don't credit him as such, because he simply retired. So he lacks a decline phase.
Sutton, OTOH, is not brought down by his decline phase, but more by his slow(ish) development.
Like I said, his spot in the late 30's is open to change. But I would rather have that extra time to mull it over. I would be happier if Niekro and Simmons were joined by someone from our high backlog - Fox Trouppe or Jones would all meet my distinct approval. I have no real hope of Hugh Duffy joining the hallowed ranks at this time - maybe in a few "years".

Simmons came out even better than I expected. If Torre and Freehan went in, then there's an excellent case for Simmons. Schang is nearly the same level, taking into account that C were used less per season during his time. Concepcion is #17 and could make my ballot soon. Cruz Sr. is #29; Nettles #50. Nettles had the kind of long, decent hitting, excellent glove, impact on a number of pennant races, career that would have given him a reasonable shot at the HoF if Brett and Schmidt hadn't come along. Baylor has been the best DH so far, but 262/71.7 doesn't cut it. Sutter was one of the first RP used almost exclusively in save situations, but his performance itself doesn't look much different to me than that of several previous RP, such as Hiller and Perransoki who have zero chance of the HoM or HoF.

I never realized VORP didn't bother with defense (other than adjusting for position).

I think I might use VORP+FRAA as a foundation for running a hitter type spreadsheet similar to my pitching one. I realize VORP only goes back to 1959 on the website (according to Neyer's article), I'll have to come up with something else pre-1959, but I'll let you guys know how it works out . . . any deficiences I should be made aware of before starting?

Its the "page turn". When there are exactly an even 100 (or maybe an even 100 plus 1) posts then the thread is in a weird state of limbo where goes straight to an empty next page and the page links aren't quite right yet. Its might be a bit weirder than that but we've gotten used to just bumping the thread around each "page turn" until its normal.